Gizmo

Proposed Rule Change Discussion: Number of Rostered players in the off-season

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

please keep All comments in this thread related to

 

Changing 5.1.2 wording ONLY

 

Current Owner votes to Chang wording of rule 5.1.2:

 

For Changing: Gameday Demons, Necessary Roughness, 

 

NOT for Changing: 

 

On the fence: Donkey Power

Edited by Gizmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose to edit the wording of Rule 5.1.2. to change "after a draft" to read "during the off-season" which would include the free agent acquisition period that starts May 1st and runs through the pre-season as already described within the rule.

 

5.1.2: A team may exceed the maximum number of players after a draft, but must cut the roster down to 20 players the Sunday before the beginning of the season. If a team does not submit any roster or contacts by the deadline, the team will be fined 10 credits immediately and 5 credits per day until the roster and contracts are submitted. If a team submits a roster and contracts by the deadline, but the roster exceeds the aforementioned 20 player limit or the contracts exceed 40 years (see rule 8.3), then the team will be notified and fined 5 credits immediately and 5 credits per day until their roster and/or contracts are fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good suggestion.  The current wording from our rules is from another league that has been tweaked over 15+ years.  There are bound to be a few verbiage loopholes that aren't quite in a intent of the league even though my other league The intent of limits on contracts/players is to give fairness to the season and leave space to tweak your team in the offseason.  The verbiage "after a draft" is misleading in 2 ways - there is only 1 draft a year - so "a" draft is misleading - and "draft" is misleading as the draft moves around in the offseason, the semantics here limit the ruling to when the draft occurs.  Changing this to reflect the offseason is better terminology than using "the draft" to define this rule.

 

I would vote to change this verbiage as proposed.

 

Shane - you might want to adjust your "not for changing" stance in the first post - why would you bring this up only to vote against it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.